Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 13, 2013 9:30pm-10:01pm PDT

9:30 pm
it might be, so why are you trying to put more process on us? i completely understand the general frustration with our planning and dbi process in san francisco. we don't resource the properly and things take too long and too complicated and too challenging for property owners. that is an issue that goes beyond this district. but i honestly believe this district will not have an meaningful impact with the experience that you are going to have with the planning department. this is will not make it worse. it will make this beautiful architectural unique neighborhood thchl district only covers certain things. there are many many projects that will not require necessity additional scrutiny as a result of this district. in addition we have a created certicate of appropriateness which means
9:31 pm
that certain a lot of different projects that used to have to go to the historic preservation commission can now be handled by staff. there are some projects that will be easier under this district because there will be a lesser version of historic research. an evaluation report will be required and would otherwise be required under ceqa. i would like to in invite if there are no comments, planning department mary brown to talk about the proposed district.
9:32 pm
>> we have a powerpoint presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, mary brown, department staff. i'm here to present the recommendation by the historic and planning commission for the proposed landmark district. both commissions were unanimous in the recommendation. the propose district is residential. 8 non-contributing buildings and 3 interior park. it's remarkably intact in turn of the century with victorian detailing. many cottages were developed by fernando -- the district is also significant r the usual development
9:33 pm
history district in the way the contested nature of the tract impacted the district park. the proposed district is radioed -- rooted in the nearly decade plan. specifically the plan policy recommends landmark district in the area. the neighborhood group with the neighborhood association was engaged in the neighborhood planning process among many others and requested a survey to inform and compliment the area findings. the proposed to both landmark districts was identified and strong candidate for local landmark designation. property owners were notice of
9:34 pm
these findings in 2008. because of architectural significance, high level of -- street boundary and long supportive group and the plan which recommended group of designation, the department recommended the hpc add the proposed district to it's landmark designation to the june 2011 hearing. property owners were notified of this hearing and including the standard review process for alterations. several neighbors and the dta and spoke if support of the process and no one contacted the department or spoke in opposition. a dozens individuals properties added to the program in june 2011. once added to the work program the department engaged in an outreach process. beginning
9:35 pm
with a kickoff neighborhood history walking tour which was attended by dozens neighbors. it included community meetings, workshops and focus on the proposed district and also included three events that specifically focused on the future review of alterations to billions -- buildings in the district. >> one goal of this outreach was to gain a better understanding of the community's perspective regarding prioritization and review of the character defining features to address these perspectives. discussions with stake holders led to a review process with certain scopes assigned levels of review from no change in the current review process, administrative staff level overview and review at an hpc hearing. key issues raised by
9:36 pm
the community include reducing or eliminating different scopes of work, reduce and review alterations at the rear building, increasing access to property tax savings by the mills program. i will outline the department's outlines to these issues. neighborhood feedback was used to guide discussions and revisions to the ordinance. the department significantly scaled back the level of review for certain scope of work and minimized the review. the designation ordinance was revise d the maintain the current level of review. examples of this includes replacement of windows, garage doors, roof replacement, seismic upgrades and installation of solar
9:37 pm
panels and many alterations including fences and decks and stairways. these scopes of work were not required. additional staff review or fees. if the district is designated from projects would result in a faster review process with additional fee savings. for example a view large visible dormer would require a hearing however the review fees would be less than the state mandated in environmental ceqa. as well
9:38 pm
as scopes of work included in the mills act contract. >> the goal of excepting these specific scopes of work was an attempt to reserve hearings for larger projects, insertion of parking garages and prominent facade alterations. these can occur concurrently with other entitlements and other construction cost. during the community engagement process many property owners expressed interest in the property tax savings offered by the mills act and the application process presented a barrier to these
9:39 pm
savings. supervisor scott wiener sponsored legislation to amend the program to make the application process quicker and cheaper and more predictable. the department coordinated with the assess ors office and reduce the application fee. the program became effective in october 2012. also supervisor wiener proposed an online questionnaire. 34 property owners participated in the november 2012 online poll -- and supported the project. a break down is found in your case report packet. recently the department has received e-mails both in support and
9:40 pm
opposition of the proposed designation of property owners opposed to the district. also made flyers produced which made information which are inconsistent which made these available at public events. in response to concerns raised in the flyers, earlier this month the department mailed an update to property owners to address misconceptions about landmark designations and clarify benefits and review process. in conclusion the department has addressed concerns in the community outreach process and a landmark status is warranted. the commission has forwarded the recommendation
9:41 pm
for designation. as an aside i would like to submit a memo of non-substantive changes to the ordinance. this concludes my presentation. >> the last thing you say mention? >> there were a few typos in the designation order and it's non-substantive. >> thank you. i should also that as for public comment as an amendment as part of legislation we adopted last year it set the uniform annual application deadline in may 1, to try to stream line this process. because it's going slower than we anticipated. the amendments that i'm proposed would provide that for this district only just for this
9:42 pm
year the deadline would be october first so if property owners choose can participate this year and then they will synchronize starting with may first deadline. >> i had a quick question because i haven't had a neighborhood in my district go through this process yet. you said there is about 32 participation with the actual vote? i was just wondering if that was the typical turnout. >> it's the first time we've ever conducted a poll. many buildings have multiple property owners so it's hard to say exactly what the percentage would be. we said roughly 35 percent. >> so it could be that one property owner might own several properties. the total of property owners. >> correct. we were looking at the property owners in terms of
9:43 pm
percentages. it was in terms of property owners including multiple units. >> just to add to that we did actually mail to tenants as well but only 4 responded. i think they were split. some support it and some were not. thank you. any comments or questions? anything else from planning? >> we'll open it up to public comment. public comment will be two minutes. when you have 30 seconds left you will hear a soft bell and when you hear a louder bell your two minutes has expired and you should wrap up. i will call a batch of names at a time. you do not have to testify in the order that i call you. you can just come up and lineup to my right on the side of the room. so
9:44 pm
we'll start with don cham bre, dennis lane, summerville, amy hock man, chris motley, john jones, brian nan, mr. cham bre? >> thank you supervisors. i just want to voice my strong opposition to the proposal but i want to ensure that you understand that i am opposed to it as it is currently written and presented by the city. not opposed to being ever a historic district, but under the current terms of this
9:45 pm
proposal, the burden lies completely with property owners. there is absolutely no participation or contribution by the city to ensure that the beauty, integrity of a district like this issen insured for the future. i believe this should be a shared responsibility. so i stand in strong opposition to the proposal as it is currently presented. thank you. >> thank you. mr. cham bre. >> good afternoon, dennis lane. i live at 75 piers and i'm here to voice my opposition. thank you. >> hi. amy hock man. i'm here to voice my support for the
9:46 pm
district. i do think that we need to save and preserve our history and i think a lot of the reason that dta started this process with what's going on in market street with those 8 story buildings going up. i think we need to pause and think about preserving this section of san francisco. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jason, i'm in the proposed district raising three kids there and i have started, owned and operated multiple high tech companies in san francisco. over last month a group of us contacted every property owner to find out what level of support there was. we have the following list of 37 property owners. we find the
9:47 pm
proposal redundant and -- ceqa has already established proposed. i would like to submit this list of 37 owners. so of the 106 properties in the neighborhood. 59 property owners responded representing 56 percent of the total owners. this took months, by the way. we e-mailed, we stopped people on the street and knocked on doors and september -- sent actual mail and we found 53 percent are opposed, 22 percent in favor and the remainder are neutral. why did we do this?
9:48 pm
we thought the outreach meetings were great but we didn't actually collect real data. we found real issues where 63 percent of the neighborhood didn't get the mailing and there is a minority representation of 32 percent. so it didn't actually light a fire for people to participate. so, just to wrap up, we urge you to vote against this proposal. >> my name is john jones. i have lived in in district for 30 years. for the life of me i don't understand what is so significant about this district. all of the district and most of san francisco is a historic and you can landmark
9:49 pm
almost any place you visit. we don't need another layer of bureaucracy to get revisions to our property or maintain our property. to buy a house in this district cost you a minimum of a million dollars. no one is going to put a limit of shingles and take down redwood and depreciate their properties. it's unnecessary that we have a fear that we are going to damage the homes by remodeling them. the planning department has the authority right now to over see the remodel of the victorians in a significant way. so we can't really change our victorians. i think the whole district is
9:50 pm
unnecessary and a burden on the property owners and as the manager said we are opposed to ratio 3-1. thank you. >> my name is summerville. i support this to our district. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is brian o'neal and i have concerned in particular about the effect on the hospital california pacific. now i notice on page 5 that this was originally called a hospital lot and i don't know the history behind this, but if the hospital will gain in anyway through the building of the new hospital and then the change of property value
9:51 pm
here, i am definitely opposed to this. i was recently jailed after protesting supervisor wiener's policy on nudity and kept in jail for 8 months. supervisor wiener is more concerned with covering our fannies. i also noticed that lieutenant governor news son with bradley manning also u.s. army supporting the inclusion of manning in the pride marshall. i am right now spent
9:52 pm
almost an entire day california pacific trying to get medical support since i have been convicted of child molestation and i have been followed. these are the effect of your legislation and i suggest that also california pacific should not benefit from this. they do the least amount of charitable work in the city and i have not been able to get proper medical care from them. thank you. >> next speaker. before we get to the next speaker let me call a few more cards. meg heart, peter straus, dennis richards. go ahead. thank you for your
9:53 pm
patience. >> i have lived with my husband in this district since 1977 and we support the resolution. >> i have a degree in architectural. neighborhoods like this are very very rare. they come to us through very bizarre circumstances. this area was not developed when the rest of the city was and it was developed in a matter of a few years with very good architects with very good architecture and later architecture went into decline.e have the added
9:54 pm
bonus of having a huge amount of economic uptake in the neighborhood where people care about the neighborhood and are trying to do what they can to these buildings. to speak to some of the comments that everyone loves this neighborhood and no one is not doing anything wrong to it. 1975, they did an addition to it and green marble in the haw -- hallway. you have a horrible mismatch. is it appropriate to the neighborhood? no. in opposition we had a house finished, lovely couple and did an amazing job and carried a house that was beautiful that fits in as if it was there on
9:55 pm
the block. we have still 6 houses that are clad in stucco. it is our job as stewards of these buildings, not as mere owners to look beyond our financial and investment opportunities to be stripped of these buildings to make sure the neighborhood is here. >> hello. i'm meg heart. we are delighted to be part of this neighborhood. i echo what mr. win gart has said and also the city has really listened to what we have said and that is an issue but it's separate from what we are trying to do here. this is about presents evasion and being mindful of that. i'm here in support of historic
9:56 pm
preservation. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i represent the district. i want to express my opposition of this area as a landmark district. what i would like to ask is maybe there be a vote allowed by the property owners of the area. i feel that 35 percent is a very low percentage to make a determination that we have to support this. so i would like to have a vote of the property owners to make that determination. thank you.
9:57 pm
>> good afternoon supervisors. i live in this district. a survey showed that not only do we have a beautiful set of homes in our neighborhood but this is the largest in tact grouping of architecturally significant buildings in anywhere in san francisco. that is 6 blocks to the north and the 2 blocks that become part of this district. i think it comes down to two issues. the first is whether does this deserve to be an historic district with respect to the necessity. when we look out of our windows we are aware of the care that many people have taken of their homes and at the same time we look at our
9:58 pm
windows and see things that have been done in the past to abuse the architectural characters within our homes with inappropriate modifications and additions. we are aware that necessary years that property in the city has been more dead than alive. anything we can do to preserve character of the district is necessary. the other issue comes down to whether people are being treated fairly. i think it's surprising to me that as many people oppose this as do but i think this staff deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the process. i think this is what is being asked of you today whether this has been set in place and sets a fair and equitable process, with the mills act provision and the permit --
9:59 pm
>> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm somewhat on the fence. i would be more supportive if the district made an investment to the district. we have wires on the streets. i believe there should be a cove -- cohesive look to the neighborhood. as a board member i was very adamant that there should be a survey made up of the proposed district. that it should not be something forced upon them but
10:00 pm
made to have happened to them. with all respect to my neighbors, there was a survey made and just because you don't like the results of the outcome doesn't mean you get a redo. i think the planning department did stand for itself. i understand the concerns of people who live near the park as always having to be concerned on what goes on on the back of the buildings. maybe there could be some compromise made about that. and that's it. thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. we are here today to talk about preserving the unique character of the neighborhood not only for the people who live there, for the